Meeting minutes
Resources
PR
PR 87
<McCool> PR 87 - Update wot-wg-2023-draft.html - Revised Introduction
McCool: Some discussions updated, Ben has a small comment
… discussion on naming: model, abstraction, description
… the comment is updated with how we came up with description from the original model
McCool: The suggestion made by Ben can be addressed in a new PR
<cris_> +1
McCool: and merge 87 as-is
Kaz: We should update the motivation section with, e.g., counter fragmentation and wider industry adoption.
McCool: Let's add an issue about it
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: <read the initial charter statement>
Ege: What are our decision regarding mentioning the Interest Group
McCool: Let's discuss in a separate PR
McCool: Consensus on merging the PR as-is?
McCool: PR merged.
McCool: Let's open an issue regarding Ben's comment
PR 66
<McCool> PR 66 - Move IG mention to collaboration section
<kaz> diff
McCool: Let's clean up the PR 66 conflict and move the sections
… the PR needs a rebase
Kaz: Removing the sentence about the WoT IG from the Mission statement is fine. Also keeping the text about the WoT IG within the Motivation section is fine.
… On the other hand, it would be better to clarify the relationship among WG, IG, WoT CG and WoT-JP CG. A brief sentence about that can be put right below the section title of "5.1 WoT-related W3C Groups".
McCool: The current pr is a step in the right direction we could add another paragraph about it in another PR.
… ML wants to clarify the process that goes from the requirements to the actual specification
McCool: Does it belong to the Mission statement?
McCool: <fixing the PR 66 patch conflicts>
McCool: Consensus on the edit?
<kaz> merged
PR 99
<kaz> PR 99 - Addressing feedback from Arch call on March 23
<cris_> +1 for Ben's comment
McCool: One proposal mentions specific implementation, better not have it
Kaz: It's odd to have this sentence here because it's another scope list rather than a summary of the following list.
McCool: Consensus on not merging it?
McCool: Closed with a comment on the consensus
McCool: We can add a sentence that emphasize the work on the profile later
Issues
Issue 14
<kaz> Issue 14 - Confusing use of the term "protocol binding"
Ege: There are two alternative PR linked to the issue
McCool: Does it impact the charter or the work-items?
Ege: I think it does not impact the charter
McCool: Doublecheck the charter document for mentions of protocol bindings
McCool: Better remove the link to the wot-binding-templates
McCool: The protocol binding is mentioned in the Charter, some cleanup is needed
McCool: Let's open a PR about it
Kaz: We do not need to mention binding-templates as requirement here, we should rather think about the generic use-case to requirements process, not within this Charter but during the next Charter period work..
McCool: We could also avoid mentioning the architecture document
McCool: Let's open a new PR to check and fix all the mentions to protocol binding
McCool: which kind of bindings do we have?
Ege: we have two way to express profiles, one via protocol-bindings and one via protocols
<cris_> I think is the best we can do, given current constraints
Ege: note that title contains protocols too
McCool: title is fine cause we are mentioning that is it is out of scope
Ege: ok it is fine
McCool: changing Matter protocol binding to simply Matter binding
McCool: was Binding Templates ok as term?
Cristiano: it was controversial too
McCool: any strong objection to merge the changes directly?
… got some technical problems
… it doesn't work
… I'll save them in a local file meanwhile
McCool: it seems a github problem
… I'll create a PR with the edits that we just did later
… we agreed to remove protocol bindings and use lower case letters
McCool: is Issue 98 redundant?
Kaz: we can add it to mission statement or motivation
McCool: maybe motivation is better (is less controversial)
Kaz: agreed
McCool: ok taking the statement and adding it to the charter file
<mc edits the motivation and background section>
McCool: how does it look like?
Ege: do we define SDO somewhere?
McCool: we can say organization
Kaz: that's fine
McCool: creating the PR
… sadly Github has still troubles, saving it for later
<McCool_> <p> Currently the IoT is highly fragmented with a multitude of different standards and ecosystems which often do not easily interoperate. This is a concern as much of the value of the IoT can only be obtained when devices and services from different vendors can be used together. The standards developed by WoT are intended to address this issue by defining additional building blocks to allow systems from di[CUT]
McCool: adding an extra sentence in the mission statement. Industry support is important and we should mention it
… would it be ok? I'm not mentioning profile or discovery by name.
Ege: sounds good to me
+1
McCool: as previous we can't create a PR and I'm coping the proposed text
… I think we are in a good shape (when the proposals will be merged
… then we just need to update the schedule
[adjourned]